Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

Ray Blaak wrote:
> Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
>>> GNAT's library model lives on a different place on the tradeoff curve as
>>> compared to the other Ada vendors. It allows some problems to be avoided at
>>> the expense of suffering from other possible problems that the other Ada
>>> vendors do not.
>> What's the "suffering" you see here?
> 
> None myself. I am speaking theoretically. There must be *some* advantage to the
> library approaches the other vendors use, right? Right? :-)

E.g., gnatmake without gnatchop is incomplete. The GNAT
compiler proper succeeds translating Ada programs when the
source text is organized into one-file:one-unit. Or, maybe you'll
have to create a number of specially named files in the presence
of subunits. The advantages have been explained...

Q: "What source files is the compilation system actually using?"

The answer would probably have to be a detailed
one in the GNAT case. For other compilers, it might be

A: "Read the file that lists the units."

GNAT's default model delegates source code organisation to
the programmer, suggesting a suitable set of files. (The
advantages have been explained...). This doesn't remove a need
for tools that let you switch views of spec and body.
Can you submit this Ada source program to just gnatmake?

-- %< -- %< -- %<
procedure Foo;
--  Does nothing, really

procedure Foo is
begin
    null;
end Foo;
-- %< -- %< -- %<

Perhaps gnatchop with gnatmake is be easier to implement
than some other schemes. The advantages have been explained...

But in the end, gnatchop + gnatmake is good enough.
Just use the GNAT scheme for every Ada project. ;-)